Infinite Summer

My interpretation of one of the main themes is that the singular, linear pursuit of individual happiness is unfulfilling, alienating and lonely. No single goal or pursuit, when achieved, can bring happiness (ie money, fame, a drug high, achievement in sports, watching the samizdat etc.). [This is especially highlighted in the discussion between Steeply and Poutrincourt during the match where Hal and Stice are playing their match - approx. Kindle location 15507]

This is in direct opposition to Ayn Rand's belief that the "proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or self-interest".

I have not read all of DFW's essays or works. Does this theme come up elsewhere and is it ever directly or indirectly compared to Rand's ideas?

Well, if I remember correctly, many criticisms of Objectivism center around Rand's solution to the complexities of (and contradictory desires introduced by) social interactions and personal interrelationships as (briefly summarized) "ignore them."*

At least in that sense, DFW is entirely in opposition to Objectivism's inherent self-involvement.

But, in my humble opinion, this is a lot like saying, "DFW's contention that 'the integral of f(x) is the limit as n approaches infinity of the summation of blah blah blah' is in opposition to Rand's contention that 'one plus one equals eleventy four.'"**

Of course, I hate Ayn Rand. So there's that.

*Note that my clear bias against and dismissive treatment of Objectivism is intentional.

**I'm not attempting a specific or academically sound argument here, but rather making the larger the point that I don't think IJ addresses Objectivism directly, but rather that IJ inherently treats Objectivism as unsound by addressing the subtler, higher-level subtleties of a philosophy that already establishes a clear opposition to Objectivism.

As most of us know, I imagine, Wallace was planning to become a professional philosopher well into his college years. Evidently he was judged by his professors at Amherst to be one of those people who might go on to make some major breakthrough in contemporary philosophical/mathematical thought (in the vein of Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke, etc.)

So yes, obviously Wallace is explicitly concerned with some philosophical ideas, and he takes this stuff really seriously. Given how laughable Rand and her "ideas" are to more or less all professional philosophers, however, I doubt very strongly that Wallace ever meant to engage with Objectivism. The conflict between the two is incidental--the relationship between any well-thought-out system of ethics and Objectivism.

That's not to say it's not worth talking about, if that's the sort of thing that rings your cherries.

Nah- my cherries have been rung enough. Just making an observation and asking a question. I'd rather talk about feral hamsters.

[quote="Sutpen"]As most of us know, I imagine, Wallace was planning to become a professional philosopher well into his college years. Evidently he was judged by his professors at Amherst to be one of those people who might go on to make some major breakthrough in contemporary philosophical/mathematical thought (in the vein of Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke, etc.)

So yes, obviously Wallace is explicitly concerned with some philosophical ideas, and he takes this stuff really seriously. Given how laughable Rand and her "ideas" are to more or less all professional philosophers, however, I doubt very strongly that Wallace ever meant to engage with Objectivism. The conflict between the two is incidental--the relationship between any well-thought-out system of ethics and Objectivism.


I'm glad to read what you have written. The subject line made me shudder. Ayn Rand and IJ; Objectivism is not any real philosophy. Not anywhere near DFW.